Aarrrccchhhaaaeeeoool
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T H A M E S V A L L E Y AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL S E R V I C E S S O U T H W E S T Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset Archaeological Evaluation by Andy Weale Site Code: TQS11/118 (ST 5392 2822) Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset An Archaeological Evaluation for Ham and Doulting Stone Ltd by Andrew Weale Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code TQS11/118 December 2011 Summary Site name: Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset Grid reference: ST 5392 2822 Site activity: Evaluation Date and duration of project: 6th –9th December 2011 Project manager: Andrew Weale Site supervisor: Andrew Weale Site code: TQS 11/118 Area of site: 6ha within 8.9ha Summary of results: The evaluation has confirmed that features certainly and probably of archaeological interest exist across the site in the form of ditches, gullies, pits and postholes along with a probable ring gully structure. Artefactual dating evidence was limited to a single sherd of Roman pottery but the character of the deposits suggests that most of them are likely to be of later prehistoric or Roman date. Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited with Somerset County Museum Service in due course, with accession code TTN CM 101/2011 and PRN 31537. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp. Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 22.12.11 Steve Preston9 22.12.11 i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset An Archaeological Evaluation by Andrew Weale Report 11/118 Introduction This report documents the results of an archaeological field evaluation carried out at Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset (ST 5379 2827) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Mr John Salmon of Land and Mineral Management Ltd, The Roundhouse Cottages, Bridge Street, Frome, Somerset BA11 1BE on behalf of Ham and Doulting Stone Ltd. Planning permission is to be sought from Somerset County Council to extract lias mineral from a 8.9ha parcel of land. The results of a field evaluation have been requested to determine if the site has archaeological potential and if so, to produce information to mitigate the impact of the proposed extraction. This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement, Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) and the County Council’s Mineral Plan Policies on archaeology. The field investigation was carried out to a specification approved by Mr Steven Membery, Senior Historic Environment Officer of Somerset County Council. The fieldwork was undertaken by Andrew Weale, Steve Crabb, David Platt, James Early, Chris Crabb, Aidan Colyer and Jackie Pitt from 6th to 9th December 2011 and the site code is TQS11/118. The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, South West, Taunton and will be deposited with Somerset County Museum Service, with accession code TTN CM 101/2011 and PRN 31537. The archaeological potential of the site was revealed by an earlier desk-based assessment (Hollinrake 2011). This indicated Roman finds were common in and around the Charltons and extensive quarrying in these two medieval villages (Charlton Adam and Charlton Mackrell) has revealed masonry associated with Roman finds. Location, topography and geology The site is located at to the south of the village of Charlton Adam (Fig. 1), with Charlton Mackrell to the north- west, Babcary to the north-east, the town of Somerton lies approximately 4km to the west and the A37 Fosse Way (Roman road) lies 750m to the east. The site slopes from around 29m above Ordnance Datum in the west down to 24.5m in the east. It is bordered to the west by the present quarry workings and to the north, east and 1 south by farmland. Currently the site is a large grass covered agricultural field (Fig. 2). An area of the site recorded by geophysical survey (below)is considered to be that of a former pond or old pit. This area of the site was generally flat but the outline could be seen as a cropmark within the grass (Fig. 7). This area was excluded from the evaluation. The underlying geology is mapped as Jurassic Lower Lias Clay with some Limestone (BGS 1973), A mixture of limestone and clays were observed within the trenches. Archaeological background An archaeological desk based assessment highlighted the potential of archaeology within the area surrounding the site (Hollinrake 2011). In summary it has noted that Roman finds are common in the area with the site of Roman buildings to the north at Bull Lawn Lane, Charlton Mackrell and another at Hally Hill to the south-west The course of the Fosse Way Roman road lies just to the east of the site (Margary 1955). Both Carlton Adam (Cerletone) and Charlton Mackrell (Cerletune) are mentioned in Domesday Book (AD 1086) (Williams and Martin, 2002). A geophysical survey on the site (Haddrell 2011) has identified strong evidence for archaeological features in the form of a probable prehistoric round house and several enclosures. Weaker evidence for archaeological features exists within the site consisting of possible former field boundaries and possible hearth-like features. The survey also found evidence for magnetic disturbance, possible geological responses, a series of land drains and at least two phases of agricultural activity (Fig. 7). Objectives and methodology The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the presence/absence, extent, condition, character, quality and date of any archaeological deposits within the area of development. This work was carried out in a manner which did not compromise the integrity of archaeological features or deposits which may warrant preservation in-situ, or which would better be excavated under conditions pertaining to full excavation. The specific research aims of this project are; To determine if archaeological deposits of any period are present. To determine if any Iron Age or Roman deposits are present which represent further occupation of this area. To determine if any Iron Age or Roman deposits representing ancillary settlement features such as enclosures, field systems or cemeteries are present. To determine if there is any medieval occupation in the area. To determine the impact of the development on the archaeological resource. 2 We proposed to dig 19 trenches, 2m wide and between 10m and 50m long (2.0% of available site area). The trenching was specifically positioned to examine the geophysical anomalies thought to be of archaeological origin (Fig.7), but did not initially target the ring gully anomaly. Topsoil, and any other overburden was to be removed by a 3600 tracked machine fitted with a toothless ditching bucket to expose archaeologically sensitive levels, under constant archaeological supervision. Excavation of exposed archaeological features was to be carried out by hand and spoil heaps were to be searched for artefacts. A metal detector was to be used to enhance the recovery of metal finds. Results All the trenches were excavated as intended and an additional trench, 20, was excavated after consultation with the Somerset archaeological officer, to examine the possible ring gully revealed in the geophysical survey (Fig. 3). The trenches varied from 10m to 50m long and from 0.35m deep to 0.80m deep; all were 2.1m wide. A complete list of trenches giving lengths, breadths, depths and a description of sections and geology is given in Appendix 1. A complete list of features investigated forms Appendix 2. Trench 1 Trench 1 was aligned WNW - ESE and was 25.5m long and 0.50m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.20m of subsoil overlying brown yellow clay with frequent limestone fragments (natural geology). No archaeological features were present and no finds were recovered. The geophysical anomaly in this area may be a change corresponding to an area of higher limestone content within the clay natural. Trench 2 (Figs 4 and 6) Trench 2 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 18.6m long and 0.55m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.15m of subsoil overlying natural geology overlying bedded limestone(as in Trench 1). Two ditches were recorded. Located at the south end of the trench, ditch 2 was aligned west-east, was over 1.2m wide, 0.80m deep and was filled with mid grey brown clay (53) with occasional limestone, and contained a fragment of iron as well as a piece of modern bottle glass. Ditch 2 could be seen as a cropmark within the grass of the field roughly parallel with the northern edge of the site and could be seen to cross trenches 2, 3, 4 and 5 (recorded as ditches 2, 7, 20 and 15) but did not show on the geophysical survey. At 8m from the south end of the trench, ditch 3 was 4m wide (the ditch was only excavated to 2.2m wide due to the presence of an active land drain) and 0.45m deep, and filled with mid brown silty clay (54) with occasional limestone fragments. No finds were recovered. Ditch 3 was in a similar position and alignment to a large geophysical anomaly. 3 Trench 3 (Figs 4 and 6) Trench 3 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 37.1m long and 0.40m deep.